quantum Through mathematical manipulation, Bohm took the Schrödinger equation and rewrote it in a form reminiscent of NewtonÊs Second Law. This more ÂclassicalÊ form not only allows for possibilities denied by the Copenhagen interpretation but also bypasses the unresolved issue of the measurement problem entirely. 21 One may question how these theories can co-exist and why the Copenhagen has come to dominate. In fact, both theories have the same formalism , meaning they give the same numbers and are empirically ÂcorrectÊ but have two different valid interpretations . The problem is therefore that neither can be chosen in preference on the grounds of experimentation to our current knowledge. The reason why the Copenhagen interpretation has come to be more prevalent could be as simple as it came first. 22 It was comprised of a very strong group of scientists that have imposed what some may call scientific dogma. 23 potentialÊ 20 . 20 Cushing, James T. Philosophical Concepts in Physics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 342. 21 It may come at the price of non-locality which some may say conflict with special relativity but this is addressed in Shimony, A., Controllable and Uncontrollable in Non-Locality in s. Kamefuchi et al. , 1984. pp. 225-30. 22 Much of the Copenhagen interpretation was forged in the Solvay Congresses of 1927-30, whereas Bohmian mechanics in the 50Ês. 23 The whole reasoning is discussed in Cushing, James T. Quantum mechanics: Historical contingency and the Copenhagen hegemony . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Conclusion
Since the main two opposing schools of thought have reached an impasse, 24 there has been very little following that would imply any conclusive answer in the scientific community. It is at this stage that we might follow a more instinctive approach, and follow the lead of many of scientists mentioned who have expressed their philosophical predilections as strongly as their own scientific theories. With absolute determinism there is no room for free will and the opposite is true with absolute indeterminism, the loss of anything resembling cause-event and the introduction of complete randomness means that our actions have no influence on the world around us. I feel that it would be necessary to compromise between the polar opposites of determinism and indeterminism and accept most likely that our universe is a combination of both (though how this would function on a macro/micro level I do not know). The debate is left wide open. The only certainty is that it is definitely more complex than clockwork. 24 There are a plethora of other interpretations of quantum mechanics that cannot be explored. The Everett may world theorem is explored in Jenan IsmaelÊs How to Combine Chance and Determinism: Thinking about the Future in an Everett Universe.
80
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker